Week 7 Sec 4 Analytical Paper Constitutional order Paper

Week 7 Sec 4 Analytical Paper Constitutional order Paper

Week 7 Sec 4 Analytical Paper Constitutional order Paper

Analytical Paper: Constitutional Order Paper

Original intent is a notion that indicates that the American judiciary should always embrace the United States Constitution Framers’ initial intentions, especially in being objective in any ruling. For instance, Madison put up with the belief that Constitutional interpretation should uphold the Founding Fathers’ initial intentions when they were ratifying the Constitution.[1] As a result, the courts have always been under the test of whether they uphold the initial Constitutional intentions, putting in my mind that the extent of these Founding Fathers’ original intent is sometimes unclear. As one of the Constitution drafters, James Madison believed that the original intent should not solely rely on the Constitutional Framers’ primary intentions rather than the intentions of the people their various representatives represented in Constitution ratification. On the other hand, another American Constitution pioneer, Alexander Hamilton, who represented the New Jersey people, indicated that Constitution has the power to control how people interpret it. From Hamilton’s point of view, the Constitution does not need any other interpretations of its original meaning, contradicting the fact that the liberal nature of the Constitution grants powers to the federal government. While evaluating the essence of the original intent of the American Constitution, Thomas Jefferson came up with strict constructionism, another form that would help interpret the Constitution. From his perspective, Jefferson believed that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were all guided by the 10^th Amendment. The 10^th Amendment implies that any un-relegated powers belong to the people or states. However, through his interpretation, Jefferson also seems to violate his interpretation form after he concluded that there was a need to involve a Constitutional Amendment in the Louisiana Purchase even if he transacted the purchase without engaging it.[2] Generally, the Original Intent of the Constitution’s founders on the Bill of Rights drafting appears unclear. That is because the Bill of Rights was not part of the 1787 Constitutional convention drafting. At the same time, the federal government had limited powers that the states had delegated to it. That is due to no federal government’s power to relegate any subject that would be part of the Bill of Rights, meaning that rights enumeration was unnecessary.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Week 7 Sec 4 Analytical Paper Constitutional order Paper HERE 

Good News For Our New customers . We can help you in Completing this assignment and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside, AI report alongside the assignment. Feel free to chat Us

Research Question Development

One of the authors in the realm of political science, Robert Higgs, clearly evaluates the essentiality of the Constitutional order changes from its Original Intent and placing it in the current United States public policy status. In his Crisis and Leviathan Book, Robert Higgs believes that the essential change concerns the limited government commitment declination. When the Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the Constitution, the original Constitutional order cornerstone was inclined towards limited government doctrine that provides undeniable truth of America.[3] The Founding Fathers developed the government by depending strongly on religious principles and federal power limitations. It is also paradoxically true that the Founding Fathers being enslavers and businessmen, would exploit capitalism and limited government doctrines for their financial gain.

The Research Question

What has been the impact of limited government as a notion of active discrimination towards the Bill of Rights, especially those that align with the Criminal Justice System?

Importance of the Research Question to Public Policy Area

My area addresses policies that reduce overcrowding in the New Jersey prison system/ correctional facilities. Overcrowding in the New Jersey prisons means that the Criminal Justice System in the State is experiencing an increased number of crimes. When prisons become overcrowded, they pose various issues, including moral, financial, and legal implications for State heads. Each State deals with the overcrowding issue differently, thus designing effective strategies that address these issues comprehensively, especially by providing punishment alternatives and advocating for law reforms.[4] Legislators and other Criminal Justice System professionals like parole boards and judges have recently experienced increased pressure due to increased crime in New Jersey. For instance, New Jersey’s 21 counties currently have 19 jails; their population as of 2019 was 10 470. However, in December 2019, the State’s correction authority-imposed jurisdiction for approximately 18 613 within nine prisons, with the State spends approximately $940 million.[5] Consequently, the State’s community corrections center has 15 194 offenders under parole and 127,804 offenders under probation. That is because the prison population is increasing at an unprecedented rate, especially with individuals convicted for various less serious crimes, especially those that involve property offenses and public order. As a result, the inmates have been facing increased medical and mental issues due to idleness and stress. In general, most United States cannot build extra prisons to handle the increasing number of offenders, thus engaging in alternative punishments to reduce such congestion. Some less costly alternatives include community service, parole guidance, restitution, and halfway houses compared to imprisonment. Hence, the research question is essential to the selected policy since it will help evaluate the limited government’s power in ensuring that the prison-related policies align with the Bill of Rights. The paper will therefore evaluate the limited government origins and try to expound on its effects on the criminal justice department.

Limited Government Origins

The limited government origin exists in two perspectives, the religious and political perspectives.

Religion Perspective of the Limited Governments Origins

As part of the religious input towards the American Constitution, the Bible outlines that a government is responsible for protecting the subjects from any ill motive from those that may oppress them.[6] Hence, considering God’s sovereignty is above all living things, the government should always aim to protect God’s creation at all costs, thus fulfilling His promises. That shows that the aspect of limited government originated from the Bible, where God would direct the chosen servants to engage in activities that only would protect human beings. For instance, most servants of God in the Bible, like Daniel and Moses, had to seek the counsel of what God wanted them to do to ensure that they appease Him.[7]

Most of America’s States’ ratifying convections had considered the proposed Constitution from 1787 to 1789.[8] The only problem that arose was the strong element of Anti-Federalists, which aimed at opposing the ratification with the fear that Constitution centralization would negatively affect the individuals’ and States’ rights. Hence, most States believed that it was important to engage the Bill of Rights, which saw six of the first thirteen states that were part of the Constitution providing ratification instruments with their most preferred Amendments to ensure that it secures different personal liberties like the rights of jury trial, press liberty, and conscience rights.[9] The issue that arose concerned was identifying the actual meanings of these recommended liberties. That is because, during the first Amendment, the religion clauses were first interpreted using accommodationist and separationist strategies. The first rights had a strong bond with the religion where Congress had no mandate to make laws for the religious establishment or prohibit any religious exercise. The Amendment of religion was supported by Virginia, Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Carolina, and New Hampshire, except Massachusetts.[10] That is because Massachusetts legislation did not identify any Constitutional threat to the State’s religious establishment through the belief that the new federal government’s limited powers would have nothing to do with religious matters.

The Constitutional Framers on their original intent towards the religion clauses can then be interpreted using the accommodationist and separationists perspectives.[11] The accommodationists believed that the Constitution Framers created the religion clause to prevent any chance by the federal government to establish a religious denomination or sect that would be more prominent than others. Hence, the accommodationists believe that the Framers wanted to protect religions from discriminatory practices that would abridge religious liberty. On the other hand, the separationist believes that the religion clause was more of a separation strategy between religion and civil authority, thus making every institution more independent. That means that despite the government’s mandate to protect religion, it should never offer any aid to any religious group. Both views project different interpretations concerning the power of the government over religion, but still, they do not articulate clearly what the 1789 religion clause entails.[12]

Apart from the religion clause, other clauses concerning press freedom and rights for jury trial still do not pause the clear intentions of the Constitution Framers. That is because most scholars believe that the Framers were broad while injecting few restrictions on the enumerated rights.[13] As a result, most scholars believe the rights amended in the first Amendment were completely experienced due to federal limitations than state-related powers. That can be seen after Congress passed the 1798 Act on Sedition, initially ratified in 1791, concerning speech restrictions. However, after the 1919 Sedition Act and the 1917 Espionage Act, there developed a great debate concerning the actual free speech clause, which has played a big role in the courts. It was mainly backed up by the Common Law perspective, which was supported by the notion that a free state reflects press liberty.[14] Such press liberty is only true since there had been no previous restrictions on publications, but it was not the same case when the same press failed to have freedom when dealing with criminal matters. Some scholars believe that redressing rights, speech, and press should never have limits.

However, the main concern is what to consider when engaging the nonprotected and protected expression. While evaluating these Bill of Rights, it is clear that individuals’ interests depend on the larger society, with the Court being the final solution to these interests. Hence, these courts’ final verdict will always be weighed on whether they conformed to the Constitutional Framers Original Intent. Therefore, the Court’s decisions may be the first factor to consider when addressing the issue of prison overcrowding in New Jersey. That is because when Courts give their final verdicts to the offenders, they mainly assess the vulnerability of the community members to the offenders before making any judgment, thereby making prisons the best place for these offenders.

Political Perspective on Limited Government Origins

The Founding Fathers asserted that they were patient with the English crown’s political connections during the Declaration of Independence by believing that all human beings were equal.[15] The assertion continued to indicate that their Creator provided them with unalienable rights making it the principal factor that the new government was formed to secure such rights. Such self-evident premises are part of the natural law that has its roots in biblical doctrines, which indicates that each individual has an innate dignity and worth, considering that these individuals were created and resemble God’s image. Hence, the political perspective borrows its explanation from the religious perspective since God is the sovereignty where such sovereignty projects natural law’s ability to limit the land’s law. As a result, any limited government political implementation has to ensure that it aligns with the natural law. Hence, as the founders went ahead to craft the United States Constitution, they extended the limited government political doctrine that involved legislators’ elections through the people that they ruled. The Founding Fathers also saw it necessary to divide the Federal Government into Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches, which are independent of one another but have to work together for the interests of the people.

Hence, whether one tries to explain the impact that Religion and Political perspective have on the federal government, it is clear that they both limits the government’s powers. Consequently, The Bill of Rights also, to some extent, engages prohibitions that continue to limit the federal government powers, especially in matters concerning individual liberties infringing like the due law process, which is part of the Criminal Justice System.[16] The other aspect that becomes important when addressing the limited government element is the issue of federalism. That is because federalism tends to provide checks and balances associated with state and federal governments. In such a case, the states’ power not delegated specifically to the federal government is always reserved for the people and states.[17] That means the limited government idealistic notions were a perspective of the Founding Fathers. For instance, when Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, he asserted that the limited government is a frugal and wise government that prevents men from hurting others though such government always helps them to be free in pursuing their improvements and industry. Despite such assertions, it has been more than 230 years as the American citizens continue to demand more formidable interventions and actions that their representatives should work upon. However, the political responses to these calls have led to a radical shift from the initial intentions of the limited government perceived by the Founding Fathers. Such a shift has been acknowledged by most scholars though there are still gaps to explain why the limited government seems to be more ill-fated since the American colonial era and how to rebuild and correct these limited government principles for future generations.

Constitution Connection to Prison Overcrowding

Over two decades, the American courts have held with so many cases that bring on the jail and prison Constitutionality conditions. The courts using the “hands off” approach to face prison cases gave way to judicial activism that took place in the 1960s as the judiciary intervened in Arkansas prisons’ inhumane conditions.[18] The issue remained unsolved until 1974, when the US Supreme Court acted. During that time, the Court dictated that despite the prisoners being contained in an institutional environment that diminishes their exigencies and needs, these individuals still have their Constitutional rights despite being imprisoned for their crimes. As such, the United States courts have received different cases requiring an assessment of the Constitutionality of different prison conditions like fire safety, sanitation, medical care, diet, and exercise. Other broader cases lie in the Constitutionality nature of prison overcrowding and its impact on other prison issues. Prison overcrowding has had many harmful impacts, affecting not only the courts and prisoners since it also affects prison legislatures and administrators. As a result, the correction authorities have a similar position to the lawmakers in establishing longer minimum and mandatory sentences as they restrict probation.[19] In the 21^st century, prisons have been facing an increased number of prisoners despite the budgetary constraints that most United States prisons face, thus limiting their prison facilities’ expansion. These appealing conditions when prisons experience overcrowding mostly project results. Hence, policymakers need to understand the overcrowding legal ramification and the actual impacts to address these issues effectively. One important thing to note is that prison overcrowding is dangerous to inmates. Hence, when creating policies for the New Jersey prison overcrowding, it will be essential to ensure that one has full evidence of such overcrowding issues as a Constitutional challenge.[20] At the same, courts should also be careful in assessing the presented evidence, which can be through comparing the empirical studies and circumstantial issues for an effective ruling.

Capital punishment and incarceration are part of the punishments that use direct force exercise toward human beings without such power being used in any other area of domestic politics of any liberal state. That is because most liberal governments check their legitimacy compared to superior physical forces. Hence, since liberal governments’ main mandate is to protect their subjects’ lives, how these sanctions are placed may lead to these governments practicing illiberal practices. In most cases, penal sanctions are morally necessary and practical. However, the punishment intent within the liberal ideals indicates the need to engage principled restrictions on penal power scope, making only a few restrictions to engage the American sentencing process. Generally, the Supreme Court embraces the Eighth Amendment that prohibits unusual and cruel punishment and where the penalties should be made proportional to the offenses. However, in recent years, the proportionality of these offenses and punishments has been attenuated over the current years. That is because only a few proportionality principles restrict legislature when prescribing any sentence ranges for different crimes.

An example is March 2003, when Supreme Court evaluated the three-strike law in California that had mandated lengthy prison sentences had not violated the 8^th Amendment’s proportionality requirement.[21] That is despite these sentences reflecting on minor cases like theft that led to children’s videotapes worth $150 or the shoplifting that had taken place in a three golf clubs. In a case involving United States v. Booker and Blakely v. Washington, the Court found federal and State sentencing guidelines that were part of the legislative capabilities in ensuring that the judicial sentencing in Constitutional proportionality is maintained under the 6^th Amendment.[22] Hence, despite these sentencing guidelines aiming at consistency and fewer severity restrictions, the concerns at Booker and Blackey Courts were more inclined towards the decision-makers and their decisions regarding criminal sentence severity.[23]

How Limited Government Powers Impacts Prison Overcrowding

Robert Nozick, in his perspective, questions the existence of the states, thus requiring to justify the State’s power suspicions. Such ideological commitment does not only question the existence of liberty but the need to justify the coercive state power.[24] That is because most people tend to believe that the power bestowed to the States by the Constitution tends to interfere with personal liberty. Therefore, there will be a need to ensure that state power is scrutinized, evaluated, and defended before it can be accepted automatically since absolute power is considered in a totalitarian form of government. Between totalitarianism and anarchy, one will find limited government.[25] Hence, when evaluating the required proportionality, which influences the American political system and other legal institutions like the Criminal Justice System, the sentencing law abides them. That is because they all work under the ideological commitments of the need for state power justification and limited government commitment. That means state power requires justification, absolute power has fewer chances to be justified, and there can be justification for limited powers. Such assertions show that the proportionality principle is more political and not necessarily a penological aspect.[26] Hence, since each State acts as a specific institution with different powers, these powers must be scrutinized and justified. Hence, when dealing with the New Jersey issue of prison overcrowding, the policies put in place to reduce the issue should be more focused on the state power scope while it is also the proportion to power occasions.

Therefore, the relationship between power separation and proportionality requires underscoring. That is because the limited government theories project that government bodies’ trust towards imposing and observing their power limitations is unacceptable. However, the power limitation needs to originate from other bodies that exercise power from the people, including other governmental institutions. For instance, before the policymakers in New Jersey imposes any policy to reduce prison overcrowding, such as offering simple punishment for different less serious offenses, they will need to engage in a bottom-up approach. That means the policymakers will need to engage all local, State, and national stakeholders to ensure that these policies can also be applied nationally.[27] Hence, if proportionality limits the legislative power, the legislative alone cannot be trusted to determine its powers. Hence, despite the independence that the three branches of government attained from the Constitution, these branches share some powers meaning that none can do without the other. Hence, there is a limitation on each branch of government, especially in gaining the power to punish criminal offenders.

Therefore, the main consideration that the New Jersey Criminal Justice System and State should make to ensure that they effectively address the issue of prison overcrowding includes using evidence-based strategies and policies.[28] That means the member states should ensure that these strategies and policies to reduce overcrowding are gender-sensitive and align with the vulnerable group’s needs. Also, the member states need to ensure that they have critically reviewed the legal aid adequacy, such as the trained paralegals, to help in strengthening public defense and justice mechanisms that will help in pre-trial detention necessity. The member states will also need to ensure that they have conducted a system-wide assessment to help them identify criminal justice process inefficiencies that lead to prolonged custody periods and create new measures to address the criminal justice process efficiency like introducing detention time limits.[29] Consecutively, Member state needs to be encouraged to introduce measures that facilitate early prisoners released from the prisons and correctional institutions and be subjected to other referrals like electronic monitoring and halfway houses as well as other strategies to prevent recidivism rates with or without parole such as addressing the prisoners mental health issues, especially on behavioral disorders.

Conclusion

The limited government doctrine can be traced from the Original Intent of the United States Constitution Framers. Hence, the impact of the federal government has been one of the most important factors of Constitutional order in various aspects of ruling at state and national levels. The discussion on the Criminal Justice System has been part of the Constitutional order as it is represented in the Bill of Rights and different Constitutional Amendments. However, these Constitutional orders have had different evaluations due to the different interpretations by different perspectives, including the political and religious perspectives. However, the issue of proportionality is key when addressing the policies that need to be addressed in reducing overcrowding in New Jersey prisons. That is because it helps the reader understand the essentiality of collaboration between the three arms of government, including the limited government powers. Hence, despite the limited government powers, these governments should ensure that it has comprehensive, evidence-based national strategies that help address local issues and needs and alternative project reactions to crime, making imprisonment the last solution that aligns with an international standard. Hence, to succeed in such measures, the government should engage its citizens with education, supportive and fair social policies, and strategies to prevent crimes like increased employment opportunities, including collaborating with all stakeholders. However, all these recommendations mainly rely on the political will to maintain and sustain reforms.

Bibliography

Casey, Cameron. “Cruel and Unusual: Why the Eighth Amendment Bans Charging Juveniles with Felony Murder.” BCL Rev. 61 (2020): 2965.

Frase, Richard S. “Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: What have we learned?.” Crime and Justice 48, no. 1 (2019): 79-135.

Gunderson, Anna. “Why do states privatize their prisons? The unintended consequences of inmate litigation.” Perspectives on Politics 20, no. 1 (2022): 187-204.

Hoskins, Te Kawehau, and Avril Bell. “Being present: Embodying political relations in Indigenous encounters with the Crown.” Contemporary Political Theory 20, no. 3 (2021): 502-523.

Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Möller, Kai. “Lüth and the ‘Objective System of Values’: From ‘Limited Government’towards an Autonomy-based Conception of Constitutional Rights.” Global Canons in an Age of Uncertainty: Debating Foundational Texts of Constitutional Democracy and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2022), LSE Legal Studies Working Paper 04 (2022).

Pope, James Gray. “Mass incarceration, convict leasing, and the Thirteenth Amendment: a revisionist account.” NYUL Rev. 94 (2019): 1465.

Thompson, C. Bradley. America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It. Encounter Books, 2019.

Thornton González, Carson. “A Deliberate Difference?: The Rights of Incarcerated Individuals Under the New Mexico State Constitution.” New Mexico Law Review 52, no. 2 (2022): 548.

Wong, Jennifer S., Jessica Bouchard, Kelsey Gushue, and Chelsey Lee. “Halfway out: An examination of the effects of halfway houses on criminal recidivism.” International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 63, no. 7 (2019): 1018-1037.

Wilson, John F., and Donald L. Drakeman. Church and state in American history: Key documents, decisions, and commentary from the past three centuries. Routledge, 2018.

[1] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[2] Pope, James Gray. “Mass incarceration, convict leasing, and the Thirteenth Amendment: a revisionist account.” NYUL Rev. 94 (2019): 1465.

[3] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[4] Wong, Jennifer S., Jessica Bouchard, Kelsey Gushue, and Chelsey Lee. “Halfway out: An examination of the effects of halfway houses on criminal recidivism.” International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 63, no. 7 (2019): 1018-1037.

[5] NIC. New Jersey 2019. https://nicic.gov/state-statistics/2019/new-jersey-2019

[6] Möller, Kai. “Lüth and the ‘Objective System of Values’: From ‘Limited Government’towards an Autonomy-based Conception of Constitutional Rights.” Global Canons in an Age of Uncertainty: Debating Foundational Texts of Constitutional Democracy and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2022), LSE Legal Studies Working Paper 04 (2022).

[7] Wilson, John F., and Donald L. Drakeman. Church and state in American history: Key documents, decisions, and commentary from the past three centuries. Routledge, 2018.

[8] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[9] Wilson, John F., and Donald L. Drakeman. Church and state in American history: Key documents, decisions, and commentary from the past three centuries. Routledge, 2018.

[10] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[11] Wilson, John F., and Donald L. Drakeman. Church and state in American history: Key documents, decisions, and commentary from the past three centuries. Routledge, 2018.

[12] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[13] Wilson, John F., and Donald L. Drakeman. Church and state in American history: Key documents, decisions, and commentary from the past three centuries. Routledge, 2018.

[14] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[15] Hoskins, Te Kawehau, and Avril Bell. “Being present: Embodying political relations in Indigenous encounters with the Crown.” Contemporary Political Theory 20, no. 3 (2021): 502-523.

[16] Higgs, Robert. Crisis and leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[17] Thompson, C. Bradley. America’s Revolutionary Mind: A Moral History of the American Revolution and the Declaration That Defined It. Encounter Books, 2019.

[18] Thornton González, Carson. “A Deliberate Difference?: The Rights of Incarcerated Individuals Under the New Mexico State Constitution.” New Mexico Law Review 52, no. 2 (2022): 548.

[19] Wilson, John F., and Donald L. Drakeman. Church and state in American history: Key documents, decisions, and commentary from the past three centuries. Routledge, 2018.

[20] Wong, Jennifer S., Jessica Bouchard, Kelsey Gushue, and Chelsey Lee. “Halfway out: An examination of the effects of halfway houses on criminal recidivism.” International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 63, no. 7 (2019): 1018-1037.

[21] Casey, Cameron. “Cruel and Unusual: Why the Eighth Amendment Bans Charging Juveniles with Felony Murder.” BCL Rev. 61 (2020): 2965.

[22] Ibid

[23] Frase, Richard S. “Forty years of American sentencing guidelines: What have we learned?.” Crime and Justice 48, no. 1 (2019): 79-135.

[24] Möller, Kai. “Lüth and the ‘Objective System of Values’: From ‘Limited Government’towards an Autonomy-based Conception of Constitutional Rights.” Global Canons in an Age of Uncertainty: Debating Foundational Texts of Constitutional Democracy and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2022), LSE Legal Studies Working Paper 04 (2022).

[25] Gunderson, Anna. “Why do states privatize their prisons? The unintended consequences of inmate litigation.” Perspectives on Politics 20, no. 1 (2022): 187-204.

[26] Ibid

[27] Gunderson, Anna. “Why do states privatize their prisons? The unintended consequences of inmate litigation.” Perspectives on Politics 20, no. 1 (2022): 187-204.

[28] Wong, Jennifer S., Jessica Bouchard, Kelsey Gushue, and Chelsey Lee. “Halfway out: An examination of the effects of halfway houses on criminal recidivism.” International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 63, no. 7 (2019): 1018-1037.

[29] Ibid

 

Week 7 Sec 4 Analytical Paper: Constitutional Order Paper

INSTRUCTIONS
In the Twentieth Century, the United States of America reached unprecedented heights in global
respect and vision as a result of the country’s efforts to rid the world of oppression. World War II
changed everything from manufacturing methods and materials from which products are made to
corporate consolidation to fundamental societal changes. The post-war years further saw
fundamental changes in the country. As in all eras, it can be debated whether some of the
changes were good or bad, depending on perspective. The one constant over some 230+ years
has been changing. As we occupy more of the Twenty-first Century, further change will be
realized.
Pick one of the three (3) policy areas you identified in the first week of class, that you have not
used in a writing assignment thus far. My Policy area of interest: Policy(s) to reduce overcrowding in the New Jersey prison system/ correctional facilities. Using the information learned
and in conjunction with your selected policy area of interest, write an Analytic Paper to explore
what has been the single most significant change to constitutional order from “original intent” to
the present public policy status that affects your selected policy area. This assignment requires
development of an original research question and explain the importance of your research
question to the current understanding of your policy area. :
– You MUST develop and answer an original Research Question to successfully
complete this assignment
– A Research Question determines exactly the answers you seek and gives
your writing has a clear focus and purpose. All research questions are the
following:
“Focused” on a single issue
“Answerable” by using primary and/or secondary peer-reviewed
sources
– “Feasible” to answer within constraints
– “Falsifiable” meaning it can be disproven or found to be false.
– “Specific” enough to answer, and
– “Relevant” to topic at hand.
– Explain the importance of your research question to the current
understanding of the prevailing assumptions that inform policy decisions
in the area of interest used in this paper.
– Citations from at least 10 peer-reviewed/scholarly sources AND from all required
readings and presentations
– 12-15 pages of double-spaced content, not counting the title page or references
-Double-spaced
– Turabian Format